U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Arizona Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma

The Sackler Family, more commonly known as the owners of Purdue Pharma LP, have been at the center of a massive epidemic that has claimed the lives of almost half a million Americans within the past decade. The opioid crisis has been an ongoing issue that has recently been thrown into the spotlight because of the multiple lawsuits that seem to appear every day against the former billion dollar pharmaceutical company. Just recently, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away a case from the state of Arizona which sought to recover billions of dollars from the Sackler Family, after they claimed the family was funneling the money out of the company for themselves, months before Purdue filed for bankruptcy. 

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich was the individual who pursued this specific case against Purdue, according to Reuters. His case’s overall goal was the same as the thousands of other lawsuits filed against the company within the past year; to hold Purdue accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic, and lack of action to protect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Brnovich’s specific suit accused eight members of the Sackler family of funneling out up to $4 billion throughout a period of eight years (2008 to 2016). Brnovich believes the family funneled out the money because they were aware of the potential liabilities its marketing of opioids instilled, so to make sure they’d be financially secure when all of those liabilities came to light, they slowly made a cushion account for themselves. 

Embed from Getty Images

“Brnovich argued that the national importance of holding those responsible for the opioid crisis accountable justified taking the case directly to the justices,” Reuters reported. 

As previously mentioned, there are currently thousands of lawsuits that are being worked through against Purdue. The suits range from state, county, and even city-wide in terms of severity, but they all seek the same thing that Brnovich wants, holding the Sacklers accountable for their major role in the U.S.’s opioid addiction crisis. A majority of the lawsuits make the same claim, that Purdue “deceptively market[ed] opioids by overstating their benefits and playing down the risks.”

As a response to the lawsuits, Purdue has already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September of this year. The filing came after the company had already reached a deal that holds them accountable for $10 billion to be distributed depending on the severity of each suit. As of September 2019, when this deal was proposed, 23 states had filed a suit against Purdue, and about 2,000 individual cities did as well. 

Embed from Getty Images

The original proposed deal only cited that Purdue pay $3 billion to the thousands of plaintiffs over the course of several years; however, over half of the states with opened lawsuits refuted that original deal. They refuted after claims were made that the Sackler family was worth well over three times that amount, and owed more when compared to the amount of lives lost and destruction caused by the family’s willful ignorance. 

After the $10 billion proposal deal, a federal bankruptcy judge placed a hold on every city and state-wide case against the company and family. However, Arizona and Brnovich didn’t want to wait any longer, so they continued the fight, only to be declined by the Supreme Court this week. The federal bankruptcy court and Purdue’s lawyers wanted Arizona’s case, amongst others, to remain in bankruptcy court as opposed to the Supreme Court. Arizona and Brnovich aren’t satisfied with keeping the case in the lower courts, as they wanted higher up federal action. 

“The states of Ohio, Alaska, North Dakota, Louisiana and Utah supported Arizona. Brnovich’s case relied upon language in the U.S. Constitution giving the Supreme Court ‘original jurisdiction’ over disputes in which a state is a party, meaning states can file a lawsuit at the high court instead of litigating first in lower courts,” Reuters reports.